In many situations, technologies, tools, or processes are chosen as the basis or part of a solution due to their convenience, sales incentive, a lack of knowledge of other options, or a lack of knowledge of the target environment (e.g., an organization, system, or solution). The set of technologies, tools, and processes are referred to as “assets” herein. Determining the correct asset(s) to use in a solution is often more time consuming than merely using what is best known or more readily available. As such, five core issues are typically encountered: (1) the inefficient or wasteful use of time and money; (2) the inability to deliver a solution that properly and correctly addresses the needs of the target organization/target environment; (3) the creation of a solution to justify the use of a particular asset; (4) obstacles to successful delivery of a solution remain unknown but continue to be impediments to success; and (5) a team's business credibility is diminished through focusing (and pushing) a specific asset without the appropriate business justifications.
Heretofore, the core solution approach in addressing these issues included pursuing a clear understanding of the needs of the target environment and focusing on identifying the correct assets available to address those needs. Moreover, engagement teams will often analyze an existing solution or initiative to ensure the needs and available assets are identified. This is achieved through measuring the capability or maturity of the initiative, once a solution or engagement has already begun.
Unfortunately, the current solutions available often take a lengthy time to conduct root cause analysis of the core issues. In addition, this analysis occurs once a solution path has been chosen, during an engagement. This is a reactionary approach that is based on addressing existing problems, in progress, instead of preventing problems before they occur and often requires a “course change” to repair the identified issues. In addition, many existing capability and maturity assessments take a holistic (“end-to-end”) view, and thus require a time consuming effort. Thus, existing approaches have these drawbacks (among others): (1) determination of obstacles during the engagement makes it harder to resolve those issues; and (2) resolving obstacles during an engagement will significantly increase the cost to resolve those issues.
In view of the foregoing, there exists a need for a solution that solves at least one of the deficiencies in the related art.